Q: How can you link all these activities to the research design?
A: We designed outputs and outcomes in Tamale but these have changed now. But they still fit in the research framework. THe problem is that our activities are scattered (due to the pressure to deliver by September). Next year we have to bring it all together in benchmark sites.
Q: How many communities where these projects are run will be longer term project communities?
A: We narrowed down from 60 communities to 1 or 2 benchmark sites (communities). We will not have more than 15-20 action research sites. We're now using GIS, remote sensing, intensification parameters etc.
Ethiopian Highlands
5 Quick Win projects: Quick Feeds, Quick Water, Integration of pulses ICARDA, Tree-livestock interactions ICRAF-ILRI, Research design ILRI-CIMMYT. Projects working on livelihoods assets, indigenous knowledge and participatory analysis.
Q: How did you assess the livelihood impact mentioned in your presentation?
A: We did it on a scale from -5 to +5 on the livelihoods scale for impacts on livelihoods. The indicators were defined by the communities themselves. We had 15 farmers split in 5 and each came up with a set of indicators. When we looked at the participatory methodology, it seemed to me it fitted well with these numbers. It helps ask farmers critical questions. We did that work in 3 days. We used a cluster analysis approach which is in the process of delivering results. We end up with very different constraints etc.
Q: The USAid mission in Ethiopia, are they involved?
A: Yes, but they will be participating in this planning meeting and that's where the alignment will happen very much. Suzanne Poland has some responsibilities for this work. We're not yet up to speed with them. It would have been great to do it later but we didn't.
East and Southern Africa (Tanzania, Malawi and Zambia)
This presentation is about Tanzania and Malawi, not about Zambia.
In Malawi, legumes are the entry point for sustainable intensification. Baby trial sites.
In Tanzania, action districts identified, reconnaissance surveys conducted.
In research/planning workshop, report from quick win projects, consolidation, prioritisation of research entry points and methods, ID of research sites, formation of research teams, agree M&E indicators, present plan to stakeholders.
There are more activities in Malawi than in Zambia.
Q: In terms of the future activities, are you planning to work on the same sites in e.g. Tanzania?
A: We identified 4 districts in Tanzania. We haven't identified the sites - we are constrained by USAid's expectations e.g. to link up with a large project and to collocate our work in that project (which is place for some years).
Comment: We have a list of activities but no research site. We went on field visits and visited the Nafaka project. Then we came up with constraints and opportunities and drew our list of activities from it.
Comment: Some activities are informed by proposals developed at the beginning of this year.
Plenary discussion
Q: There's a lot of initiatives and I hope that this body of knowledge informs the design - at what moment could it be linked up with this project?
A: We will consolidate the work with all existing projects and centers when developing the year plan for year 2 in ESA. The same applies for West Africa in late October. Other stakeholders are an integral part of the project. Ditto in Ethiopia. All researchers have had to look at past initiatives etc. and this can often get missed and we end up reinventing the wheel. We need to concentrate on that past information, which is often readily accessible.
--> My expectation was that we would use the cataloguing process to link up with other initiatives.
In the ESA workshop in October we'll look at the inventory and the conceptual and physical hypotheses about what our comparative advantage is with Africa RISING.
Q: To what extent are we synchronizing activities with other USAid (mission)-funded activities? CG centers and dev partners are pulling us in different directions. Our development partners are doing sthg else.
A: but they're not doing different things everywhere, in Malawi there are synergies. In Tanzania too.
--> In Ethiopia we haven't firmed up partnerships with everyone. We are aligning our activities with the Growth Transformation Plan which USAid supports closely.
--> In West Africa, we have been approached by a USAid project and the benchmark site selection will coincide with their high activity sites. We invited them to attend our meetings and have discussions. We are in close contact with the missions.
Jerry's also planning a lot of visits to USAid missions to link the dots together.
With Nafaka, my understanding was that we would have activities in the same sites. But when they go somewhere they don't know how much fertilizer they should be using etc. We have to work together. And there is a huge turnover with those mission staff members so we need to engage as much as possible with them throughout.
On data and information, I'm involved in the Systemwide livestock program. In Ethiopia there are lots of data we can link up to. There was also the fodder adoption project. We can link up with those projects.
We could develop general guidelines for engagement with the USAid missions etc. in this workshop.
We could go and scout ??? for the October workshop in ESA in early October. IFPRI should be around with us.
This is why it's important to work with development partners on the ground - e.g. Nafaka has already decided about the districts where they will work.
We need to work together (AfRISING/Nafaka/USAid) to ensure a well integrated approach.
Q: Do we have any liberty to work in areas where USAid is not involved?
A: I don't think we are expected to work in the most remote districts. There are districts with very poor population density or low access to markets, which are not applicable for this project. We're not focusing on the low-low quadrant.
We, as scientists, have to ensure we come up with more information and intensification activities. We don't need to work where e.g. Nafaka is working. We can also bring them over. We are asked to add value to where partners are working.
What we would like to add is a general view and more details on how each project is going to be implemented in the field - that's important for IFPRI's M&E strategy - so we need to stress collaboration and communication... So far there is rather weak communication among us in this project. Each partner is conducting their own research etc. but there is no central repository. We need to keep on top of communication.
We started off as 3 projects, now we're becoming one program and we need to make sure that e.g. the research framework was shared around.
There was pressure on us to deliver the quick wins etc. In West Africa we were in the middle of the rainy season etc. and were pressed for work. The project and program coordination committee should improve.
Africa RISING M&E Expert Meeting
5-7 September 2012Large auditorium,ILRI Ethiopia, Addis Ababa
Back to the event agenda
Status of research planning in the three zones
West Africa (Ghana & Mali)
Q: How can you link all these activities to the research design?A: We designed outputs and outcomes in Tamale but these have changed now. But they still fit in the research framework. THe problem is that our activities are scattered (due to the pressure to deliver by September). Next year we have to bring it all together in benchmark sites.
Q: How many communities where these projects are run will be longer term project communities?
A: We narrowed down from 60 communities to 1 or 2 benchmark sites (communities). We will not have more than 15-20 action research sites. We're now using GIS, remote sensing, intensification parameters etc.
Ethiopian Highlands
5 Quick Win projects: Quick Feeds, Quick Water, Integration of pulses ICARDA, Tree-livestock interactions ICRAF-ILRI, Research design ILRI-CIMMYT. Projects working on livelihoods assets, indigenous knowledge and participatory analysis.Q: How did you assess the livelihood impact mentioned in your presentation?
A: We did it on a scale from -5 to +5 on the livelihoods scale for impacts on livelihoods. The indicators were defined by the communities themselves. We had 15 farmers split in 5 and each came up with a set of indicators. When we looked at the participatory methodology, it seemed to me it fitted well with these numbers. It helps ask farmers critical questions. We did that work in 3 days. We used a cluster analysis approach which is in the process of delivering results. We end up with very different constraints etc.
Q: The USAid mission in Ethiopia, are they involved?
A: Yes, but they will be participating in this planning meeting and that's where the alignment will happen very much. Suzanne Poland has some responsibilities for this work. We're not yet up to speed with them. It would have been great to do it later but we didn't.
East and Southern Africa (Tanzania, Malawi and Zambia)
This presentation is about Tanzania and Malawi, not about Zambia.In Malawi, legumes are the entry point for sustainable intensification. Baby trial sites.
In Tanzania, action districts identified, reconnaissance surveys conducted.
In research/planning workshop, report from quick win projects, consolidation, prioritisation of research entry points and methods, ID of research sites, formation of research teams, agree M&E indicators, present plan to stakeholders.
There are more activities in Malawi than in Zambia.
Q: In terms of the future activities, are you planning to work on the same sites in e.g. Tanzania?
A: We identified 4 districts in Tanzania. We haven't identified the sites - we are constrained by USAid's expectations e.g. to link up with a large project and to collocate our work in that project (which is place for some years).
Comment: We have a list of activities but no research site. We went on field visits and visited the Nafaka project. Then we came up with constraints and opportunities and drew our list of activities from it.
Comment: Some activities are informed by proposals developed at the beginning of this year.
Plenary discussion
Q: There's a lot of initiatives and I hope that this body of knowledge informs the design - at what moment could it be linked up with this project?A: We will consolidate the work with all existing projects and centers when developing the year plan for year 2 in ESA. The same applies for West Africa in late October. Other stakeholders are an integral part of the project. Ditto in Ethiopia. All researchers have had to look at past initiatives etc. and this can often get missed and we end up reinventing the wheel. We need to concentrate on that past information, which is often readily accessible.
--> My expectation was that we would use the cataloguing process to link up with other initiatives.
In the ESA workshop in October we'll look at the inventory and the conceptual and physical hypotheses about what our comparative advantage is with Africa RISING.
Q: To what extent are we synchronizing activities with other USAid (mission)-funded activities? CG centers and dev partners are pulling us in different directions. Our development partners are doing sthg else.
A: but they're not doing different things everywhere, in Malawi there are synergies. In Tanzania too.
--> In Ethiopia we haven't firmed up partnerships with everyone. We are aligning our activities with the Growth Transformation Plan which USAid supports closely.
--> In West Africa, we have been approached by a USAid project and the benchmark site selection will coincide with their high activity sites. We invited them to attend our meetings and have discussions. We are in close contact with the missions.
Jerry's also planning a lot of visits to USAid missions to link the dots together.
With Nafaka, my understanding was that we would have activities in the same sites. But when they go somewhere they don't know how much fertilizer they should be using etc. We have to work together. And there is a huge turnover with those mission staff members so we need to engage as much as possible with them throughout.
On data and information, I'm involved in the Systemwide livestock program. In Ethiopia there are lots of data we can link up to. There was also the fodder adoption project. We can link up with those projects.
We could develop general guidelines for engagement with the USAid missions etc. in this workshop.
We could go and scout ??? for the October workshop in ESA in early October. IFPRI should be around with us.
This is why it's important to work with development partners on the ground - e.g. Nafaka has already decided about the districts where they will work.
We need to work together (AfRISING/Nafaka/USAid) to ensure a well integrated approach.
Q: Do we have any liberty to work in areas where USAid is not involved?
A: I don't think we are expected to work in the most remote districts. There are districts with very poor population density or low access to markets, which are not applicable for this project. We're not focusing on the low-low quadrant.
We, as scientists, have to ensure we come up with more information and intensification activities. We don't need to work where e.g. Nafaka is working. We can also bring them over. We are asked to add value to where partners are working.
What we would like to add is a general view and more details on how each project is going to be implemented in the field - that's important for IFPRI's M&E strategy - so we need to stress collaboration and communication... So far there is rather weak communication among us in this project. Each partner is conducting their own research etc. but there is no central repository. We need to keep on top of communication.
We started off as 3 projects, now we're becoming one program and we need to make sure that e.g. the research framework was shared around.
There was pressure on us to deliver the quick wins etc. In West Africa we were in the middle of the rainy season etc. and were pressed for work. The project and program coordination committee should improve.